The Facebook empire of 1.4 billion users just conquered new territory, unrolling a “partnership” to host articles from some of the most well-known news publications in the world, in a development that critics warn poses a direct threat to independent media outlets—and the future of the Internet.

“The basic problem is that Facebook is trying to become the Internet, so that it replaces the distributive, cooperative model of digital communication with a centralized, privatized system where a for-profit company controls all the levers of the way that we transmit information,” Jim Naureckas, editor at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), told Common Dreams.

“Knowledge is literally power, and to have all that power concentrated into one company’s hands is really a kind of feudalism,” Naureckas added.

As of Wednesday, the company’s new “Instant Articles” will directly feature articles from The New York Times, BuzzFeed, National Geographic, The Atlantic, NBC News, The Guardian, BBC News, Bild, and Spiegel Online. Under the platform, the entirety of a news article will appear in Facebook’s iPhone app. The perk, according to Facebook, is that the article will load “ten times faster than standard mobile web articles.”

The New York Times says that “news publishers can either sell and embed advertisements in the articles, keeping all of the revenue, or allow Facebook to sell ads, with the social network getting 30 percent of the proceeds.”

Facebook is also allowing media companies to collect data on article readers “about the people reading the articles with the same tools they use to track visitors to their own sites,” explains the Times.

“When you hear Facebook explaining what they are trying to do it sounds innocuous,” said Naureckas. “They are trying to...

Facebook Admits to Tracking People Who Don't Use Facebook, Blames a Bug

Facebook has admitted it tracks some non-users—but says it’s only a bug and that a fix is underway. At the end of Mar​ch, Belgian researchers reported that Facebook drops a long-lasting cookie onto your machine, tracking you across pages with its social plugins, even if you’ve opted into a do-not-track system or aren’t a registered user of the site.

At the time, Facebook said the report was inaccurate, though it would not say which specific aspects were incorrect.

Facebook issued a more detailed response un​der the headline “setting the record straight,” with Facebook’s vice president of policy in Europe, Richard Allan, saying the Belgian report “gets it wrong multiple times.”

FLASHBACK April 7, 2011! - Government may use Facebook, Twitter for terror alerts
By Hayley Tsukayama

The Department of Homeland Security is planning to tap social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to help spread the word in the event of a terror attack, the Associated Press reported Thursday. In a draft of a plan obtained by AP, DHS says it may turn to social networks to spread news about new terror alerts “when appropriate,” after notifying local, state and federal officials. The plan is expected to go into effect on April 27 and will replace the government’s current:https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fas...b69175213d

When you lie so much, its hard to remember what you said. When you tell the "TRUTH" you don't have to remember anything!

Mark Zuckerberg faces allegations that he developed a “malicious and fraudulent scheme” to exploit vast amounts of private data to earn Facebook billions and force rivals out of business. A company suing Facebook in a California court claims the social network’s chief executive “weaponised” the ability to access data from any user’s network of friends – the feature at the heart of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. A legal motion filed last week in the superior court of San Mateo draws upon extensive confidential emails and messages between Facebook senior executives including Mark Zuckerberg. He is named individually in the case and, it is claimed, had personal oversight of the scheme. Facebook rejects all claims, and has made a motion to have the case dismissed using a free speech defence.

Facebook uses your phone number and can bombard you with people you don't know that it thinks you know because of your phone number or someone with a similar name. Also if people get at your phone they could trigger the spam as well.

There are also a lot of nasty people in there using it as networking for crime. They have their own little lingo for doing deals. It can be about anything including violence they broker. They also sometimes do it with what appears to be homeless people on traffic islands asking for money. They palm things and swap stuff and most people never notice what they just did. Here there are lots of programs for homeless and there is extremely little reason to be out on the street that way.(between government services and private organizations) Most people ignore them because of it. A few buy them food which is harmless enough. But I've seen a dirty rag wearing stereotypical looking homeless person go into A&W and pay $40 for food for him and his friend on his debit card. I've seen others walking around in brand new clothes wearing shoes worth up to $200. There are certain little hints that they are running something or what they are running from.

It's sad that the innocent days of just being on a friendly chat group(written or live text chat) is gone. Now you have to be aware that it could be someone that isn't so good for you or might be running a scam. I ran into gang stalkers using info from my ex-husband, then roommate to catfish me. They presented as people with disabilities on a online discussion group and gathered what personal info they could, etc in that time as part of their gang stalking and means to try to discredit.

Years ago some of that crap I would of said "Ok this is people from my old job working the censorship angle." Usually I didn't violate rules. But if you know enough your a risk so they watch you and will do it if they have to. Since I was being gang stalked, held, and hassled I was at risk of disclosure. We do deliberate memory loss sometimes to protect things. I have done it for the odd thing but the vast majority though sensitive and even worth of classification was not something I was seen as a risk. But others did see great potential in selling revenge or trying to get at old work or possible old accounts. When one of them waved a $3M check in my face that seemed to have my name on it. It became clear they were in it for money. I also heard one offering to sell someone revenge or access. Of course they deny it and at points tried to make themselves look good. Such as bad past but turned themselves around and are on a new track in life. When it's really a bunch of crap that they are networking.

I know every time I go on a site I'm at risk of that crap. I also know that simply being here either way can get me labelled as a nut. But there are certain technologies, etc that I know that I wouldn't if I really was a nut.

Speaking of which before for safety of people in dangerous situations you used to be able to enter anonymous tips even if they were about what was happening to you. But it seems now it will refuse to do that and you have to go in. Because of the problem people one station just gives me the brush off. It's not like I make frequent complaints. I made one in 1995 and one in 1988. Both were dealing with a dangerous person(my ex) who had access to computers, my papers, pictures, and children. His associates now have them treating me like it should be ignored. I got punched in the head on a city bus with a camera and microphone on it. They did nothing. Police are just disappointing if their job is to ignore violence and harassment.

Speaking of which I was on Facebook briefly during the support group thing. I left. I went back. I got bombarded by LBGTQ stuff, it recommended a bunch of people I don't know. I also found some of my abusers had accounts under more than one name because of the pictures on them. They did nothing about them but I ended up locked out of Facebook and not wanting to return. I don't know if they disliked my using gaming alias or my old name from another country I had been to. But it's probably good that I don't go there.